The nurse, Toni Lemly, sued the hospital in 2005 after it refused to grant a reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs. Lemly had objected to dispensing Plan B, also known as the “morning after” pill, and according to attorney Brian Arabie of the Alliance Defense Fund, she was subsequently fired from her full-time position and reduced to part-time status.
“The hospital acted unlawfully when it refused to make a reasonable accommodation for Ms. Lemly,” said Arabie. “Pro-life medical personnel shouldn’t be penalized for their beliefs.”
|
|
The hospital apparently chose not to act on any of her suggestions. The ADF then brought the suit on Lemly’s behalf under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, which prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of age, race, sex and religion, as well as national origin, disability or pregnancy.
The suit, Lemly v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital District No. 1, was filed in the 22nd Judicial District Court.
The court denied the hospital’s motion for summary judgment in June 2007, after which the case spent a year in federal court before coming back to the state for a ruling.
The hospital’s attorney, Charles Hollis, said the Supreme Court’s decision is in no way a decision on the merits of the case.
“This is simply a pre-trial procedural matter,” said Hollis. “We were seeking to have an appellate court, in this case the state Supreme Court, review the decision of a lower court.”
Both attorneys agree that a trial is the next logical step for the case, although more discovery needs to be completed before a trial date can be set. Arabie said the conscience rights of health care workers have been under fire for quite some time, and former President George W. Bush signed executive orders late in 2008 protecting those rights.
The rule prohibits discrimination against health care professionals who decline to participate in abortions or other medical procedures because of religious or moral objections. President Barack Obama earlier this year announced his intention to rescind the law.
Most lawsuits involving the morning-after pill are concerned with pharmacists. Arabie said he believed there was one other case, in Washington, in which a hospital was forced by the state legislature to dispense the pill.
Arabie said there have been unconfirmed reports that Lemly was not alone in her objections to dispensing the pill.
“I think there were others who had a problem with it,” he said. “No one else decided to pursue it as far as she did, though.”
View Jobs
View Homes
View Autos
Comments
teresa wrote on Jun 1, 2009 11:52 PM:
However, my point stands.
LPNs are not medically qualified to prescribe or discontinue medication.
Withholding contraception from women leads to abortion.
Federal dollars intended to provide badly needed basic medical care to women should be used for that purpose, not redirected to pay employees NOT to provide that care.
Bush created an maginary "right" to discriminate against women with no regard for patient health, but I'll be surprised if it stands. "
teresa wrote on Jun 1, 2009 9:04 PM:
All withholding emergency contraception does is force women into unwanted pregnancies, some of which end in abortion.
I am not going to participate any more in this thread after this. The facts are plain and there is nothing more to be had by re-iterating them.
I wish all of you well. "
teresa wrote on Jun 1, 2009 8:23 PM:
And the nurse is now suing them because she doesn't like that state of affairs. "
teresa wrote on Jun 1, 2009 8:20 PM:
There is nothing brave about denying someone else medical care so you can grind your ideological axe into her neck.
There is nothing brave about trying to force rape victims--women who have already been brutalized--to conceive their attackers' children.
I have read the lawsuit -- which I suspect the other commenters on this forum have not. This was about more than just this nurse not wanting to dispense birth control pills. "
R. SIDE wrote on Jun 1, 2009 12:31 PM:
Candy wrote on Jun 1, 2009 11:50 AM:
An abortificant is NOT basic medical care! And this nurse was not trying to take it away from anyone. The patient still received the pill from another nurse, so what's the harm done to the patient? (Other than the real potential harm from the pill itself--ectopic pregnancy, anyone?) "
teresa wrote on May 31, 2009 8:59 PM:
Bull, what's brave is standing up to the right wing zealots who want to take it away from them. "
teresa wrote on May 30, 2009 2:58 PM:
Should the hospital be forced to allow a recalcitrant employee to put people's health in jeaopordy to fulfill her own ideological agenda?
Should that recalcitrant employee be given the same privileges and benefits as an employee who follows the standard of medical care? "
teresa wrote on May 30, 2009 2:54 PM:
If she wants to deny rape victims access to contraception--in effect, trying to force them to become pregnant against their will--she needs to find some other line of work.
Rape victims do not need to be brutalized again by the professionals they have turned to for help. "
Candy wrote on May 29, 2009 5:24 PM:
Candy wrote on May 29, 2009 5:19 PM:
And since when does anyone choose a career path and expect to blindly obey 100% of your employers' whims no matter what? The nurse was fulfilling 99% of the work that she was told to do. Why should she have to forfeit her education, all of the years of medical training and experience just because the hospital where she works begins prescribing a certain "medication"? "
bigmeanie wrote on May 28, 2009 3:31 PM:
Candy wrote on May 27, 2009 4:34 PM: